FSD isn’t perfect. No such system will ever be perfect. But, the goal isn’t perfect, it just needs to be better than you.
Yeah people keep bringing that up as a counter arguement but I’m pretty certain humans don’t swerve off a perfectly straight road into a tree all that often.
So unless you have numbers to suggest that humans are less safe than FSD then you’re being equally obtuse.
Your saying this on a video where it drove into a tree and flipped over. There isn’t time for a human to react, that’s like saying we don’t need emergency stops on chainsaws, the operator needs to just not drop it.
Oh yeah the hanging up on you is really common. I would literally prefer a phone tree than having to talk to an AI because if what I wanted was something that would be simply explained to an AI, I would have done it myself on the website. The reason I’m calling is because I need someone with an actual brain, and in an understanding of the business, to use their brain to assist me with my somewhat complicated situation.
One time I got a credit card sent to my address that was for someone else. The letter was somehow addressed to me, but the credit card wasn’t for me and I hadn’t requested a credit card from this company. So I called the support line up and the stupid AI kept asking me for my customer ID. I told it I didn’t have a customer ID because I wasn’t a customer, and it said “thank you” and hung up on me. Fantastic.
In the end I had to call them out on Twitter in order to get in contact with a human.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a single suggestion of a way to implement age verification that isn’t a privacy nightmare. Oftentimes they literally just want a credit card number, the assumption being that a child would never be able to get hold of such a thing.
In some of the worst cases they actually want a passport or other government ID sending to some organisation that would verify you. With all the fun potential data breaches that that would ensue.
Most of the time these rules never get off the ground because privacy advocacy groups basically sue over it and win every time.
I remain baffled every time I see support for this from “progressive” online spaces and voices
It’s just people not using their brains, everything is just viewed at its surface level with no deeper analysis ever conducted. They are the sort of idiots that think that Starship Troopers is profascism.
Surely you cannot sue someone for future injuries where the future injuries are entirely unevidenced. There would have to be some kind of medical assessment that said that this kid is going to suffer ongoing injuries and I can’t imagine they have such an assessment.
Maybe the counter argument should be that this kid’s mom should attempt to get him on disability payments, and only if he’s able to get on that, will they accept liability. There is zero chance of that happening.
Bet that kid is counting the days until he’s legally an adult and can get away from her.
They are a right-wing religious advocacy group. So it’s practically a guarantee.
The group has also campaigned against sex trafficking, same-sex marriage, sex shops and sex toys
So they just did a control + f for “sex” and then are against any of the results. Are they seriously suggesting that there are people out there who are all for sex trafficking, and would vote in favour of it? They sound like lovely people.
I don’t know why they bother censoring it we all know he’s called Quentin.
Right but they believe that the car is safe, because of the advertising and because the product is legally sold.
If anyone is to blame here it’s not the owner of the car, it’s the regulators who allow such a dangerous vehicle to exist and to be sold.
Even with the distances I drive and I barely drive my car anywhere since covid, I’d probably only last about a month before the damn thing killed me.
Even ignoring fatalities and injuries, I would still have to deal with the fact that my car randomly wrecked itself, which has to be a financial headache.
That’s probably not the failure rate odds but a 1% failure rate is several thousand times higher than what NASA would consider an abort risk condition.
Let’s say that it’s only 0.01% risk, that’s still several thousand crashes per year. Even if we could guarantee that all of them would be non-fatal and would not involve any bystanders such as pedestrians the cost of replacing all of those vehicles every time they crashed plus fixing damage of things they crashed into, lamp posts, shop Windows etc would be so high as it would exceed any benefit to the technology.
It wouldn’t be as bad if this was prototype technology that was constantly improving, but Tesla has made it very clear they’re never going to add lidar scanners so is literally never going to get any better it’s always going to be this bad.
Because the US is an insane country where you can straight up just break the law and as long as you’re rich enough you don’t even get a slap on the wrist. If some small startup had done the same thing they’d have been shut down.
What I don’t get is why teslas aren’t banned all over the world for being so fundamentally unsafe.
Yes but the fingerprint wouldn’t match would it so they don’t actually have to see your fingerprint they just need to get the error back from the phone OS
Surely the pro play would be simply not to go to Russia in the first place. Thinking about it that was always the pro play.
We need to wait until we’re all there at once, and then decide that air travel out of Russia is too much of an international threat, and ban it. They can have a long and informative drive across half of rural Russia in order to get back.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen an intercity tram before. They tend to be strictly local affairs. Probably because local governments have to lay the lines, and there would be some kind of giant argument if it went across jurisdictions.
It’s a Lamborghini with wings stuck on the sides, it’s not a flying car.
How does the state verify that you’re an adult and therefore should have a token?
This solution simply seems to be kicking the can down the road